Blix brands Blair and Bush as war criminals

Irish Independent ^ | Nicholas Leonard

[dead]

TONY BLAIR'S spin doctors are finding it simple to deal with the latest spate of lurid allegations by convicted Australian con-man Peter Foster.

Confronted with Foster's titillating hints of financial and sexual sleaze in Downing Street, the spinners can dismiss the threat to the prime minister's reputation by pointing to Foster's past record and his current need to promote the value of his memoirs.

But Foster does apparently have copies of some 5,000 computer files and e-mails which will figure in a court case in London behind closed doors tomorrow and the Hutton enquiry dramatically revealed the way in which e-mails can prove embarrassing long after they are written.

At the moment, the biggest danger for Blair is that Foster's resurgence onto the media scene will remind voters of the naive way in which his wife, Cherie, became involved with the lifestyle guru and former topless model, Carole Caplin.

But Blair is certainly not in a mood to apologise, certainly not for invading Iraq. On the contrary, he said last week he sees it as a template for further pre-emptive strikes against possible sources of terrorist attack in the future.

But the former UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who, like Foster, has just finished a book about his experiences, yesterday mounted the most formidable case so far against the way in which the US, the UK and Spain defied the majority view of the security council and went ahead with the invasion of Iraq.

Blix said bluntly that the conflict was "illegal" - effectively branding both Blair and Bush as war criminals - and he demolished the argument of Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, that it was supported by the sequence of previous UN resolutions.

The criticism from Blix coincides with new revelations about the worries of the UK's armed forces on the eve of battle a year ago.

It now appears that the attorney-general's initial views on the legality of the war were too ambiguous to assure the defence chiefs that they would not face prosecution in the international criminal court.

Blair is resolutely refusing to publish the full text of the final advice from the attorney-general but may eventually be forced to do so. The Tories believe that, despite their support for the invasion, they are now in a position to make some political capital out of the continuing argument.

Hans Blix is in no doubt about what went wrong.

With 300,000 troops waiting for action, the US and the UK had painted themselves into a corner and run out of time to wait for further inspections.

Blair is now calling for new international laws to endorse such attacks in the future but Blix makes the valid point that these are not really needed because the UN has already shown it is willing to sanction intervention in the internal affairs of a country, most recently, of course, in Haiti.

[Prodigal Son]

effectively branding both Blair and Bush as war criminals

I don't have any great affection for Blix but the 'Blix brands Bush/Blair as war criminals' as stated in the title is an extrapolation on the author's part. Blix didn't say that. But the media is in the news fabrication business, so that doesn't surprise me.

[AmishDude]

The only quote is the word "illegal". You're right, Blix is a little less impolitic than the Irish Independent.

[Guillermo]

Just the other day Blix said the threat of terrorism is exaggerated, and that environmental destruction is the greater threat.

It's obvious where he is coming from.

[dead]

You're right. I thought the same thing, but I post them as they write them.

[Liberty Valance]

Hans should run for Senator in Mass. :^) He's got all the DNC talking points down.

[Maceman]

Well, Blair IS a war criminal -- but not because of the War in Iraq.

His shares criminal culpability with Clinton for the disgraceful and obscene 78-day NATO bombing of Belgrade during the war in Kosovo.

[Prodigal Son]

Yeah. But it's not honorable to put words in somebody's mouth.

Blix didn't say what this writer says he did.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Blix forgets the requirement of "inspections" as mandated by the UN. Iraq was to have destroyed its known stockpiles of banned weapons and supplied proof of the destruction. Hans wanted to run around doing his Inspector Clusseau impression. Iraq failed to provide the proof the UN required. Hans just wanted the limo rides and royal treatment afforded a "UN Inspector."

[OldFriend]

Wondering if Blix was on Aristede's payroll too?

All sources of nefarious income being cut off does things to some folks.

[philosofy123]

I love you man! It takes a real gut to admit that our illegal bombing of European Christian cities to defend Bin Laden and his KLA drug trafficking gang. We hoped that we will buy us Moslem friends in Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Notice, Bush has been in office for three and a half years, and he still did not reverse that shameful chapter of our history, and, also did not do a thing to punish Iran or Saudi Arabia. The more I think about our diplomatic mess the more I get confused.

[fdsa2]

Environmental problems could be a pontentially larger threat than terrorism. Pentagon recently issued a report on this and if I remember correctly Powell mentioned this report in a speech recently.

Maybe it´s because I´m Swedish but I am looking forward to reading his book. I will probably not agree with everything but man that must have been some intense couple of months for him.

I am a bit surprised at the headline of the article, in interviews with him and reports about the book it seems he does not make any accusations at all, except explains his views on the legality of the invasion from his understanding of international law (no surprise about his conclusions there though...)

[doc30]

The establishment Left Liberals seem to belive in fighting wars to reflect politically correct thinking, and not for the safety and security of the United States. Kosovo was a "good" war becasue the Muslims were being saved from persecution, even though there were no strategic interests or possible threats to the U.S. from Serbia. Haiti is again a politically correct situation where poor, oppressed blacks need help, even though Haiti is not of strategic interest, nor is a threat (direct or long term) to the U.S. Again, the left wishes to impose it's political views at the point of a gun. If this is how they act internationally, imagine what will happen to the U.S. if they ever regain power!

[ravingnutter]

also did not do a thing to punish Iran

FYI...

Bush Signs Extension of Iran and Libya Sanctions Act- 03 August 2001

[fdsa2]

Here is an article which I think is a bit more "balanced".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3553516&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

[88keys]

Blair is now calling for new international laws to endorse such attacks in the future but Blix makes the valid point that these are not really needed because the UN has already shown it is willing to sanction intervention in the internal affairs of a country, most recently, of course, in Haiti.

This last line of the article has me rather bemused...I mean, yeah, just look at Haiti! If that's an example of the UN's efficacy in "intervention", it rather argues for the Blair/Bush doctrine in Iraq, doesn't it?!

(Keeping in mind that if Iraq had gotten to the same state of affairs as Haiti has, they would most certainly have presented a significant international "threat", whereas Haiti does not...)

[Guillermo]

Environmental problems could be a pontentially larger threat than terrorism.

The place for you is called "DU."

[fdsa2]

That kind of bantering always raises my blood pressure. Potential environmental dangers are not left wing issues and should not be allowed to be hijacked by the left! What about "environmental problems could be a potentially larger threat than terrorism" do you not agree with? Here is what the Swedish conservatives in short thinks:

"1. The basis for environmental work is the individual responsibility and commitment to environmental work (or individuals sharing this goal). This is the only foundation for working environment policies.

2. The State shall bear the responsibility for those tasks the individuals or the market economy can or should not perform. Legislation and economic steering mechanisms are important tools.

3. The market economy must be used in order to dynamically drive the environment work forward. Emission trade should be encouraged to increase cost effeciency and increase fulfilling environment targets.

4. International cooperation must be strengtened. Environment problems knows no borders."

So Blix adressed it, that does not make it any less relevant. Even Pentagon think it should not be underestimated as does Powell?

I suspect it´s not so much an environment issue, rather an Iraq issue? To clarify, I stand by my conviction that the world is a better place without Saddam, kudos to Bush.

Blair however is a completely different matter. I my opinon he can´t open his mouth without lying. He is the all time spin meister Rat - just read the below House of Commons protocol (amazingly he escaped the whole thing without a scratch??):

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) rose-[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Howard: On 22 July, the Prime Minister was asked:

Did you authorise anyone in Downing Street or in the MOD to release David Kelly's name?"

He replied:

Emphatically not. I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly."

Does he stand by that statement today?
The Prime Minister: I suggest first of all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the totality of what I said, but I stand exactly by what I said then. However, the Hutton inquiry will look at all these issues and will make its report. I suggest to him and to Conservative Members that rather than trying to prejudge the report, they actually wait for it.

Mr. Howard: We are not going to take any lectures from the Prime Minister on prejudging the inquiry. The statement that he made, and that I just put to him, was made after he set up that inquiry. He was also asked at that time:

Why did you authorise the naming of David Kelly?"

He replied:

that is completely untrue."

Does the Prime Minister also stand by that statement?
The Prime Minister: I have already said, and I repeat, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider the totality of my remarks. However, the

7 Jan 2004 : Column 250
inquiry will determine all those issues, and I suggest that he wait until the report is published to make his points. However, it is obvious from his questions today that the Conservative party has already made up its mind. Frankly, we know what Conservative Members will say, whatever the report says.

Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister did not answer the question, as the whole country will see, so let me give him another opportunity. He was asked:

Why did you authorise the naming of David Kelly?"

He replied:

that is completely untrue."

Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement?
The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first question that I stand by the totality of what I said, but in relation to the issues that he raises, and all the others, the Hutton inquiry will report shortly and I suggest that he wait for that. It is obvious from comments that he and his colleagues have made in the past few days that it does not matter what the inquiry concludes; he has already made up his mind. However, I suggest that the rest of the House wait for the report.

Mr. Howard: But the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence has said that the decision to authorise the disclosure of Dr. Kelly's name was taken at a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister. Is not it clear that either the permanent secretary or the Prime Minister is not telling the truth?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not-as I believe that we will show when the inquiry report is published. Rather than our having a debate about the evidence now, which strikes me as rather absurd, given that we are about to have the report published, and rather than the right hon. and learned Gentleman cross-examining me now, he can do that on the day the report is published-according to what it says, not according to what he says.

Mr. Howard: I can assure the Prime Minister that I am looking forward to that.
The Prime Minister has said that Ministers in a Government that he leads should resign if they lie to Parliament. Does that apply to the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: Of course it applies to me, as it applies to all Ministers. However, since we are about to have a report that will decide whether people have or have not lied to Parliament, is it not sensible to wait for it rather than having an absurd preliminary now? As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's relish in examining me on the report, it is equalled by mine in rebutting some of the rubbish that he has been saying in the past few weeks.